Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Biblical Interpretation

This article, concentrating on two articles by Richard Hays, critiques recent interpretations of Rom. 1:18-32. Modern interpreters, influenced more by particularly modern forms of heterosexism and its construction of homosexuality, desire, and "nature" than by a straightforward historical-critical reading of Paul's letter, portray Paul as referring to the "Fall" of Genesis 1-3 in Romans 1. Paul, it is assumed, takes homosexuality to be a sign of "humanity's fallen state." These interpreters, therefore, inscribe homosexual desire into universal fallen humanity in a way that Paul does not do. For one thing, Paul is referring not to the Fall in Romans 1 but to the invention of idolatry and polytheism by the Gentiles; homosexual intercourse is therefore not a symptom of "the Fall" but of Gentile polytheism. For another, Paul is not giving an etiology of homosexual desire, which for him as for most ancients was not different from heterosexual desire, but an etiology of homosexual intercourse. Furthermore, modern scholars misconstrue Paul's references to "nature" and acts "contrary to nature" because they import into Paul's discourse particularly modern notions of "natural" and "unnatural" not available in the ancient world. Heterosexist scholars interpret Paul the way they do not because they are simply and objectively "reading the text," as they claim, but because of their implication in homophobia, a particularly modern ideological system that constructs desire, "nature," and sexuality in particular ways.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Biblical Interpretation — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation